Long-term effects of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain syndromes

1986 ◽  
Vol 233 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. P. Vogel ◽  
B. Heppner ◽  
N. H�mbs ◽  
J. Schramm ◽  
C. Wagner
2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. P. Denisova ◽  
D. Yu. Rogov ◽  
D. A. Rzaev ◽  
E. A. Khabarova ◽  
A. B. Dmitriev

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anshit Goyal ◽  
Archis Bhandarkar ◽  
Mohammed A Alvi ◽  
Yagiz U Yolcu ◽  
Mohamad Bydon

Abstract INTRODUCTION In this study, we sought to determine the trends in cost and utilization of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as well as better understand the drivers of cost associated with this procedure. METHODS The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for inpatient admissions between 2008 and 2014 where SCS was performed. We then determined the rates and costs of SCS performed in this time frame to treat diagnoses that we classified as cervical-level pathologies, thoracic-level pathologies, lumbosacral-level pathologies, chronic pain syndromes, or device-related complications. Multivariable linear regression was then performed to establish the particular patient, hospital, and clinical factors driving costs of SCS admissions. RESULTS A total of 6209 admissions were included in this analysis. The overall rate of SCS procedures performed has decreased by 44% from 2008 to 2014 (139 to 77 procedures per million inpatient admissions). The estimated national economic burden of SCS has also decreased by 28% in this time span ($115 million-$83 million). Lumbosacral-level pathologies, such as postlaminectomy syndrome of the lumbar spine, accounted for the greatest share of inpatient admissions (36% in 2014) and the greatest share of the cost associated with SCS (37% in 2014). Chronic pain syndromes accounted for the second largest share of inpatient admissions (24% in 2014) and costs (23% in 2014). Length of stay, a primary diagnosis of device-related complications, and the comorbidities of obesity and depression emerged as top predictors of admission cost (P < .001). CONCLUSION In this analysis from a national database, we determined that the rate and costs associated with inpatient SCS have been decreasing and also found several patient, hospital, and clinical factors to target for further cost-reduction efforts.


2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-71
Author(s):  
D. A. Rzaev ◽  
V. V. Rudenko ◽  
I. L. Pudovkin ◽  
A. P. Tatarintsev ◽  
D. S. Godanyuk

In the article initial experience of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain syndromes is described. The trial was done for 62 patients, in 52 cases trial was successful and subcutaneous pulse generator were implanated. Maximal follow-up is 26 months. The level of pain evaluates at VAS. Permanent pain-relieve results were achieved in 46 patients (74,2%). These results correspond to literature data.


Spinal Cord ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 671-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge AM ten Vaarwerk ◽  
Michiel J Staal

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Rasche ◽  
Patricia C. Rinaldi ◽  
Ronald F. Young ◽  
Volker M. Tronnier

Object Electrical intracerebral stimulation (also referred to as deep brain stimulation [DBS]) is a tool for the treatment of chronic pain states that do not respond to less invasive or conservative treatment options. Careful patient selection, accurate target localization, and identification with intraoperative neurophysiological techniques and blinded test evaluation are the key requirements for success and good long-term results. The authors present their experience with DBS for the treatment of various chronic pain syndromes. Methods In this study 56 patients with different forms of neuropathic and mixed nociceptive/neuropathic pain syndromes were treated with DBS according to a rigorous protocol. The postoperative follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 8 years, with a mean of 3.5 years. Electrodes were implanted in the somatosensory thalamus and the periventricular gray region. Before implantation of the stimulation device, a double-blinded evaluation was carefully performed to test the effect of each electrode on its own as well as combined stimulation with different parameter settings. The best long-term results were attained in patients with chronic low-back and leg pain, for example, in so-called failed–back surgery syndrome. Patients with neuropathic pain of peripheral origin (such as complex regional pain syndrome Type II) also responded well to DBS. Disappointing results were documented in patients with central pain syndromes, such as pain due to spinal cord injury and poststroke pain. Possible reasons for the therapeutic failures are discussed; these include central reorganization and neuroplastic changes of the pain-transmitting pathways and pain modulation centers after brain and spinal cord lesions. Conclusions The authors found that, in carefully selected patients with chronic pain syndromes, DBS can be helpful and can add to the quality of life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document